Talk:Philosophy
Crap: Philosophy Friedrich Nietzsche The Will to Power Nietzsche's concept of The Will to Power The "ego" subdues and kills: it operates like an organic cell: it is a robber and it is violent. It wants to regenerate itself--pregnancy. It wants to give birth to its god and see all mankind at his feet." II. The Will to Power Before we begin, however, it should prove helpful to explain what Nietzsche's doctrine of 'the will to power' actually is. A psychological presupposition of Nietzsche's is that humans are always attempting to inflict their wills upon others. Every action toward another individual stems from a deep-down desire to bring that person under one's power in one way or another. Whether a person is giving gifts, claiming to be in love with someone, giving someone praise, or physically harming someone, the psychological motive is the same: to exert one's will over others. This presupposition entails that all human beings are ultimately and exclusively egoistic by nature. Therefore, according to Nietzsche, there are no truly altruistic actions. The will to power is not, however, limited to the psychology of human beings. Rather, the it is the underlying noemenal reality of the universe, which manifests itself in various ways in everything and everyone. Growth, self-preservation, domination, and upward mobility are some of the basic elements of this will, which everything in the world exhibits, according to Nietzsche. This is not to be confused with Schopenhauer's "Will," however, though one could argue that there are residual qualities of it in Nietzsche's "will to power." The fundamental differences between the two are that the "Will" is not concerned with power; rather it is blind striving and unintelligent. Ideas and representations are the outward manifestations of the "Will," while the "Will" itself is the inner nature or essence of the universe. This "Will," according to Schopenhauer, is never satisfied. Taking the form of desires, aspirations, lusts, and cravings in human beings, the unsatiable nature of the "Will" makes a burden out of one's existence. Once one desire is satisfied, it merely gives rise to another, and then another, and so on. The "Will" is thus the source of all of the evil and suffering in the world. These ideas lead Schopenhauer to adopt a life-denying view of the world, since it contains nothing but suffering and the burden of satisfying unrelenting desires. Nietzsche's "will to power," on the other hand, is a life-affirming view, in that creatures affirm their instincts to acquire power and dominance, and suffering is not seen as evil, but as a necessary part of existence which is to be embraced. Lasting pleasure and satisfaction come about as a result of being able to live according to one's instincts--the ability to exert one's will to power. ... What helps to maintain such mediocrity among individuals is the present type of society or state in which most societies presently function. Nietzsche highly disapproves of any society which is operated on the premises of equal rights and/or universal suffrage, or in other words, any society in which the majority maintains power in one way or another. Socialism, democracy, and anarchism all rest on the idea that there are no great or superior individuals, and therefore Nietzsche rejects them all. These forms of society represent nothing more than the rule of the herd; the rule of mediocrity. Nietzsche rejects such forms of society in favor of the aristocratic ideal, which values a higher form of man; a model for society which does in fact demonstrate a belief in great and talented individuals and an elite class. For here the herd does not have any power, and therefore does not keep in check those who stand out among them who deserve rank and recognition, or in other words, individuals are free to act upon their will to power in the natural ways. 1-3: This also ties in with Gnostic ideas1 and Kaczynski's2 ideas of "the power process" and "autonomous biological fulfillment" 3: DEMOCRACY IS MEDIOCRITY!5 "Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd." —There was more, but I forgot Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore Kaczynski (1995) --- or Unabomber Manifesto Finished reading this a while ago (length of short book: 35,000 words), great read, killer ideas. I now realize what he said also ties in with the ideas of the global hegemony of the non-theistic modern christian ethos:34 http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf Source document: https://archive.org/details/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto Video overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioo9jps1K_k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrhajlfgWDM Text overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future WHAT is Neoreactionary? school of thought, the rejection of progress and universality, idk I've haven't read a whole lot on it. http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ "The Dark Enlightenment" is a (if not THE) core work in the Neoreactionary philosophy. http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/ This video explains it well I presume: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-eAKnVGGBI ------------------- http://anarchopapist.wordpress.com/neoreactionary-canon/ http://iamlegionnaire.wordpress.com/core-works-of-neoreaction/ BOOKS: Men Among the Ruins by Julius Evola: http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=4CF5847C0B3C49D9EBAD79CDB8857476 Ride the Tiger by Julius Evola: http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=EA1B8B9B7AD556BE9599984DBC64F4B8 Democracy: the God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=90120231ec002fe66c48eb9117f04538 Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddhin: http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=FCDDFCCC6709F5EE5F6E3636850F2B1F Patriarchia by Robert Filmer: http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/221 Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies by Bryan Caplan: http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=1E5EC023F553153E152D58DE53432D62 ------------------- find any books: http://pastebin.com/X3spDez4 Now in the 21st century it seems Nietzsche was right in saying science is an incompatible replacement for religion. That it causes a void that results in peoples' herd mentality following, for example; ideas of equality, freedom, egality etc. This is know as a mantra. Example: "Anti-Racist is a code word for Anti-White", "Assad has no place in Syria's future",6 "Communism looks good on paper", "Lets not have the smoking gun come in the from of a mushroom cloud."7 More info: http://www.ramzpaul.com/2014/05/syrian-demoncrazy-farce.html Mantra used when the Necons got the US to invaded Iraq 2003 Epistemology Seeking the Truth: And a modified, paraphrased, cut (to focus on Redpill), and annotated transcript of Davis M.J. Aurini's YouTube video, "The Redpill and Nihilism" How does one see the truth? By reading books? Yes, books can be a great source of knowledge. Although sometimes books are published with lies, depending on where you go there may be a limited access of books: maybe some book stores have an agenda. Maybe the history books are dominantly written by the winners. Can you find truth by your own personal experience and evidence. Yes, you can gain wisdom from your own experience. By using the internet? Yes the internet is really the best place to go: you can have an incomprehensible amount of information and intractability at your fingertips. But do people with an internet acess care about this information: do they seek the truth? Many people use technology and the internet for pointless stuff. Why is this? They don't CARE. Overall people who seek the truth are the ones who care about it. Truthseekers are the ones who care about it. Truthseekers are curious, they want to know about the world they live in. ---transcript--- Taking the Redpill is an idea thrown around a lot on the places I go on the internet. The Redpill is an allusion to the Matrix: Neo is seeing the glitches in reality, seeing cracks that suggest something else is going on. So he is offered the choice between taking the Redpill or the Bluepill. Taking the Bluepill would mean you continue voting, driving to work, ignoring everything, going on as you are; but you will never know the truth. Ignorance is bliss: ignorance is strength (one of the mottos in book: 1984). Taking the Redpill burns like poisen, but you learn the truth and come out better for it; if a disaster is coming you'll be able to see it, unlike all the Bluepillers. Taking the Redpill can be on a wide range of topics; although there are three main topics. 1. Gender dynamics, Feminism: Women are not inherently virtuous, they are just people, like men. And men are not inherently evil. Women are hypergammus, Feminism has an exertation to destabilize marriages and drive people apart. (There are fundamental biological differences in men and women, mental and physical, and they do masculine and feminine activitist: by nature.) 2. Govenment: It is not a naturally occuring entity, not inherent to humanity; it did not predate it. It came into existence when people were civilized: farming, enough people and wealth to support a government. You don't get tumors on dead animals. 3. Mainstream media: The realization that newsreporters, newspapers, television stations are bought and paid for, they report selectively1 on what supports their lying Bluepill ideology that profits them, that they are just another wing og the govenment2. The internet helps all of these come together. To know a newstory was false you would have to be personally involved. All us proles out there are getting together: comparing notes etc. On the internet you can find a history book written by the guy who didn't win the war, other perspectives, and the cracks are showing. HBD: Human Biodiversity theurom: realizing not all races are created equal: the psyche and the physique are different are different by nature. This is a massive painful shock to the system. Living by your own morals. Nihilism (and arguably by ideologies like NRx) is a toolkit to memetricly reenginer yourself. Saying "God is dead." means you realize you cannot know God, he is infinitely vaster than you are. The values of liberty, fraternity, and equality are basically made up words with very little syntactic value in them is depressing and painful: but this is what the true nihilist does, one by one encounters all of these religious style beliefs that have been shoved into the back of their head; and they rip them apart, look at them, and reasemble them. To create an ideology that reflects reality, to create a morality that reflects themselves, it is becoming your own God. When you've lost everything you are free to do anything. The Christians speak of this: once you've followed Jesus long enough, you fall into grace, you accept the inevitability of your sinfulbess, the same thing, becoming your own God, falling into yourself. Restructure everything, you are free to becoming the best thing you could possibly be. You don't workout and eat well because that's what you are told to do, you don't read books and ancient tomes, and treaties on economics because you are trying to impress somebody or earn a mark, but because that is what you have become, you have reenginered yourself to become the best version of yourself. And not a mix of poisenous memes from different sources: bouncing around in your head: making you miserable and ill. Nihilism is about becoming the best you can be: intellectually, physically, and spiritually. See: objectivity, journalist objectivity, objectivity is impossible See: illusion of choice, 80% of the US (mainstream) media is controlled by 6 companies Female substitute teacher in the 11th grade English class: Liberal vs. Conservative media. PREMODERNISM, MODERNISM, AND POSTMODERNISM PREMODERNISM, MODERNISM, AND POSTMODERNISM Excerpted from N. F. Gier, Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives (SUNY Press, 2000), chap. 2. Check the book for references. Let me say at the outset that I am not equating modernism with modernization in the sense of industrialization and urbanization. Modernism is also not necessarily Western and premodernism is not primarily Eastern. Furthermore, modernism is not something new and recent and premodernism something old and ancient. I shall argue that the seeds of modernism are at least 2,500 years old, and they are found in India as well as in Europe. Finally, I contend that we can also discern the beginnings of a postmodernist response among the ancient philosophers, most notably Confucius, Zhuangzi, and Gautama Buddha. Modernism has been described as a movement from mythos to logos, and this replacement of myth by logic has been going on for at least 2,500 years. Almost simultaneously in India, China, and Greece, the strict separation of fact and value, science and religion was proposed by the Indian materialists, the Greek atomists, and the Chinese Mohists. These philosophies remained minority positions, but it is nevertheless essential to note that the seeds for modernist philosophy are very old. The Greek Sophists stood for ethical individualism and relativism; they gave law its adversarial system and the now accepted practice that attorneys may "make the weaker argument the stronger"; they inspired Renaissance humanists to extend education to the masses as well as to the aristocracy; and they gave us a preview of a fully secular modern society. Even though maintaining teleology and the unity of fact and value, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle affirmed ethical individualism and rationalism, and Aristotle supported representative government, held by many as one of the great achievements of the modern world. The crisis of the modern world has led many to believe that the only answer is to return to the traditional forms of self and community that existed before the Modern Age. Such a move would involve the rejection of science, technology, and a mechanistic cosmology. Ontologically the modern worldview is basically atomistic, both at the physical and the social level. The cosmos is simply the sum total of its many inert and externally related parts, just as modern society is simply the sum total of social atoms contingently related to other social atoms. The modern state is simply the social atom writ large on an international scale, acting as dysfunctionally as the social atom does in smaller communities. The modernist view of time is also linear, with one event happening one after the other, with no other purpose than simply to keep on continuing that way. The modernist view of the sacred has been to reject it altogether, or to place God in a transcendent realm far removed from the material world. The latter solution is the way that some Christian theologians have reconciled themselves with mechanistic science. Authors of The Reenchantment of Science have argued that this reconciliation began early on and that orthodox theologians found mechanistic science an effective foil against a resurgent pantheism (all things are divine) and panpsychism (all things have "souls’) coming out of the Renaissance. Modernism also gave new meaning to what it means to be a subject, and the primary source of this innovation was the ego cogito of Descartes’ Meditations. The pre-Cartesian meaning of subject (Gk. hypokeimenon; Lat. subiectum) can still be seen in the "subjects" one takes in school or the "subject" of a sentence. In this ancient sense all things are subjects, things with "underlying essential kernels," as the Greek literally says and as Greek metaphysics proposed. (As opposed to substance metaphysics, the process view of this pansubjectivism makes all individuals subjects of some sort of experience.) After Cartesian doubt, however, there is only one subject of experience of which we are certain--viz., the human thinking subject. All other things in the world, including persons and other sentient beings, have now become objects of thought, not subjects in their own right. Cartesian subjectivism gave birth simultaneously to modern objectivism as well; and, with the influence of the new mechanical cosmology, the stage was set for uniquely modern forms of otherness and alienation. By contrast the premodern vision of the world is one of totality, unity, and above all, purpose. These values were celebrated in ritual and myth, the effect of which was to sacralize the cycles of seasons and the generations of animal and human procreation. The human self, then, is an integral part of the sacred whole, which is greater than and more valuable than its parts. And, as Mircea Eliade has shown in Cosmos and History, premodern people sought to escape the meaningless momentariness of history (Eliade called it the "terror of history") by immersing themselves in an Eternal Now. Myth and ritual facilitated the painful passage through personal and social crises, rationalized death and violence, and controlled the power of sexuality. One could say that contemporary humankind is left to cope with their crises with far less successful therapies or helpful institutions. In addition to the terror of history, many premodern people also saw the body and senses as a hindrance to the spiritual life. This view was sometimes connected, as it was in Advaita Vedanta, with the view that the natural world as a whole is illusory or at most only a derivative reality. The alternative to Vedantist monism was a dualism of soul and body; and, in its most extreme forms, Manicheanism and Gnosticism, one is presented with a fierce battle between our spiritual natures and our animal natures. Interestingly enough, a mind-body dualism characterizes some of modern thought, but it is formulated in a much more subtle and sophisticated way; and, most importantly, matter is not considered the embodiment of evil. Modern philosophy generally separates the outer from the inner, the subject and the object, fact and value, the is and the ought, science and faith, politics and religion, the public from the private, and theory from practice. Following Descartes' insistence on a method of reducing to simples and focusing on clear and distinct ideas, modern humans have made great strides conceptually and theoretically. The practical application of modernism has extended the rule of science and conceptual analysis to all areas of life: personal machines of all sorts, a fully mechanized industry, and centralized bureaucratic administration. Critics of modernism observe that it is a great irony that the modern state celebrates human rights but at the same time its state organization has destroyed personal autonomy. It has also eroded the intimate ties of traditional community life, and has threatened the ecological balance of the entire planet. Constructive postmodernists wish to reestablish the premodern harmony of humans, society, and God without losing the integrity of the individual, the possibility of meaning, and the intrinsic value of nature. They believe that French deconstructionists are throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. The latter wish to reject not only the modern worldview but any worldview whatsoever. Constructive postmodernists want to preserve the concept of worldview and propose to reconstruct one that avoids the liabilities of both premodernism and modernism. They would be very comfortable with Graham Parkes' interpretation of Nietzsche's Three Metamorphoses as representing immersion, detachment, and reintegration. They could take the camel stage as the symbolizing the premodern self immersed in its society; the modern lion as protesting the oppressive elements of premodernism but offering nothing constructive or meaningful in return; and the child as representing the reintegrative task of constructive postmodernism. Parkes explains: The third stage involves a reappropriation of the appropriate elements of the tradition that has been rejected... The creativity symbolized bythe child does not issue in a creation ex nihilo, but rather in are construction or reconstrual of selected elements from the tradition into something uniquely original. It must stressed that Parkes is attributing this view to Nietzsche, who is generally taken to be the 19th Century's leading prophet of deconstructive postmodernism. Constructive postmodernists are also concerned about a logocentric society and the dominance of calculative and analytic reason, but instead of the elimination of reason altogether, they call for a reconstruction of reason. A working formula would be the following triad: mythos > logos as analytic reason > logos as synthetic, aesthetic, dynamic reason. The best example of aesthetic reason is the unity of fact, value, and beauty that we find in Confucian virtue ethics--viz., the act of self-cultivation is analogous to the making a gem stone. A more recent example of a reconstructed logos is found the new "logic" of Western art since the late 19th Century. Cezanne rejected the classical (read logocentric) perspective and initiated a revolution that opened up new ways of looking at the world. Drawing on Japanese, African, and other non-Western themes at the turn of the century, artistic revolutionaries synthesized the premodern and modern in the same way that Gandhi did in his social and political experiments. In a chapter entitled "The Reenchantment of Art: Reflections on the Two Postmodernisms," Suzi Gablick presents both deconstructive and reconstructive examples of contemporary art and finds that the latter movement is a continuation of the artistic revolution just described. Gablick states: that Reconstructionists... are trying to make the transition from Eurocentric, patriarchal thinking and the "dominator" model of culture to a more participatory aesthetics of interconnectedness, aimed toward social responsibility, psychospiritual empowerment, deep ecological commitment, good human relations, and a new sense of the sacred.... This view of art emphatically rejects the modernist view of art for art’s sake, which is yet another result of the alienation of the private and public that we find in modern culture. Spirituality Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 — Fail. Some of my thoughts on theology (old version) See: modernism I am a MODERN man (and a fustian). One that trades previously secure and cozy ideas for knowledge. Christianity for example is one of the many unquestioning adherence to a set of ideas and views of reality (often inciting group think/mob mentality etc.). I'd like to step outside of this paradigm to objectively view these beliefs, To read other reality views, To understand the history and evolution of these ideas, To STUDY philosophy (love of gnosis). I will maintain one should be humble enough to say one ultimately cannot know, Churchianity and materialist/literal translations of the bible is stupid. To the pre-modern man, to the ignorant man, many religions are convincing as their holy texts usually state said religion is ABOVE RELIGION and is THE TRUTH or something like that. If I was to make a religion I would certainly include parts like that in my holy texts. The appeal that humans can be above the human condition and more than just average is very convincing and is a common theme throughout religions of the struggle between higher and lower self. These convincing holy texts state one can do this; but, ironically, they are just falling for convincing emotional holy texts and accepting dogmas. On the other hand it is a lot easier to follow a set of morals, a moral/ethical code of conduct (thus being a good citizen1) if one is convinced these morals come from God. Such faiths instill these ethics in communities to for a common ground. <--------------------Shit few sentences Now in the 21st century it seems Nietzsche was right in saying science is an incompatible replacement for religion. That it causes a void that results in peoples' herd mentality following, for example; ideas of equality, freedom, and/or egality etc. The ????Egyptian Chackra school of thought???? largely predates Marx and other thinkers in saying religion is an opium for the masses and is used by the state to make good citizens. ---------->See my epistemological paper here, maybe? Without one seriously pursuing, equally studying as much as said dogma, studying counter-ideas and different ideas, one will never be able to have an adequate position to subjectively judge. BUT people usually do not pursue paths of cognitive dissonance. P.S. Here in the US the degenerates running society have got everyone to look to universities as authority figures and scholars who have the truth (another form of premodernism). THOSE are just another part of the cathedral. (See: how to look at the world like a neoreactionary) Important ideas 1. Knowledge is a thing no one person can relatively have ALL that much of in their life time. 2. Everyone is a fool and the most foolish of them all are those that deny they are fools. 3. People are emotional beings (See: legionnaire blog: types of magic ie. illusion) 4. No one race or people group were worse than another, they all did horrible things User000name (talk) 06:49, August 11, 2016 (UTC)